<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Talking about strategy &#187; private equity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kimwarren.com/tag/private-equity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kimwarren.com</link>
	<description>with Kim Warren</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:00:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Another dot-com bubble?</title>
		<link>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/another-dot-com-bubble/</link>
		<comments>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/another-dot-com-bubble/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kim Warren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analysts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boom and bust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business model]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CFA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dot-com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private equity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimwarren.com/?p=1843</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Back in 1999 I got booed for saying the dot-com boom was mostly hot air, after which the NASDAQ dropped from 1000 to 200. The Economist now warns of a 2nd bubble,with private equity and big corporates falling over each other to throw cash at anything web-ish. Many of the new ventures will be great, <a href='http://kimwarren.com/strategy/another-dot-com-bubble/'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back in 1999 I got booed for saying the dot-com boom was mostly hot air, after which the NASDAQ dropped from 1000 to 200. The Economist now warns of <a href="http://news.economist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/hCaHB0SRMB0BV4a0XJUN0E6">a 2nd bubble</a>,with private equity and big corporates falling over each other to throw cash at anything web-ish. Many of the new ventures will be great, but most will fail, due to poor understanding of whether business models are viable &#8211; which needs a sound system-model of the business.<br />
<a href="http://www.kimwarren.com/index.php/2010/04/analysts-keep-getting-it-wrong/">As noted before</a>, certified analysts are not required to understand anything about the link from strategy to performance, so we can be sure disasters will follow, as we see the NASDAQ drive up from 300 to 600 &#8230;<br />
For a route to sound strategy and business models, see <a href="http://www.strategydynamics.com">www.strategydynamics.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/another-dot-com-bubble/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Good strategy from big listed firms</title>
		<link>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/good-strategy-from-big-listed-firms/</link>
		<comments>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/good-strategy-from-big-listed-firms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 09:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kim Warren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analysts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gearing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[listed firms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private equity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategic management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsustainable growth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimwarren.com/?p=623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have been tough on the poor strategy seen over both of the last two boom-bust cycles, so good to see in Sensible Giants from the Economist that the largest listed firms have disproportionately little debt compared with both smaller listed peers and private firms. It seems that these large firms are both: more able to fight <a href='http://kimwarren.com/strategy/good-strategy-from-big-listed-firms/'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been tough on the poor strategy seen over both of the last two boom-bust cycles, so good to see in <a href="http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13576300" target="_blank">Sensible Giants</a> from the Economist that the largest listed firms have disproportionately little debt compared with both smaller listed peers and private firms. <span id="more-623"></span></p>
<p>It seems that these large firms are both:</p>
<ul>
<li>more able to fight off the stupid urgings of naive analysts who pushed less powerful companies to take on more debt to pursue unsustainable growth, with the implicit threat that they would otherwise be targeted for acquisition, and</li>
<li>less tempted into the same over-gearing that underpinned the philosophy of the less thoughtful private equity firms.</li>
</ul>
<p>NEW:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;">Join </span><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1688847&amp;trk=anetsrch_name&amp;goback=%2Egdr_1241274078373_1"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;">strategy dynamics on LinkedIn</span></a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/good-strategy-from-big-listed-firms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

